RefurbedScientist

A few or a "couple"? I suppose I just have to be patient.

Can you say who? Feel free to PM me if you want to be discrete. I'm also pumped to see what happens. I don't expect much movement in the upper tiers, but I would like to see UC Irvine and ND move up. I think Irvine in particular is one of the best programs in the country to do a a few kinds of work.

^^ Great stuff from Jacib, but it all kind of points away from sociology. Even Hargittai, who was trained at a preeminent sociology program by a preeminent sociologist, has very much "turned away" from sociology. I mean not that she's turned away from sociological questions related to inequality, for example, but away from the discipline and its catchings (citing only sociologists all the time, for example). I gave experience with one of the above-mentioned institutions, and can say from experience that the dialogue between sociologists and these scholars of the internet is mostly non-existent.* One of the internet sociologist explicitly told me to go into Comm. I ignored the advice. As Jacib said, any work is possible so long as it's sociologically interesting. When you're in grad school, you will be asked at some point "What is this [your research] a case of?" This cliched requirement is a way of forcing grad students to make their empirical work theoretically relevant and tied closely to a body of literature. It's also a pragmatic way of helping you get hired some day. It descends from epistemological currents that require us to explain processes and/or infer causality. Description is insufficient. In my mind, this is bad for sociology. There ought to be more studies that begin with "What the hell is going on at LARPs?" But, alas, such is not on the cards. However, if you can force your substantive interest in gaming culture into a mainstream sociological debate, then it's as viable as anything else. Start reading sociology and see if you can figure what gaming culture is "a case of" in the sociological literature. If it's a case of something, then that's your statement of purpose. If it's not (or a case of something not in soc literature), I strongly recommend you look into the names and programs Jacib mentioned. *Edit: But increasing, thanks in part I think to the supposed role of social media in Occupy and the Arab Spring and the slow but sure coming-around of sociologists to big data. It's ironic that we don't look much at gaming, though, considering Simmel gave play and games great attention. Hey, there's always a first person to study something.

Just to clarify, I think doing informational interviews with faculty and your UG now or soon is a good first step. At that meeting, just chit-chat about sociology and ask if you can pass along a draft SoP in a month or so (Before finals!). As a second step, meet with them again or over email to ask for a letter of rec. You won't need those until like November or December, so you have a few months to build a relationship before you actually request letters in Sept or Oct.

Sorry to hear about that brinut. Don't be discouraged, though. This might be awkward, but you could reach out to the department chair. Tell her/him that you were a sociology grad, you worked for professor so-and-so, just learned about his/her passing, and need to find other recommendation writers. Departments usually want to promote their UGs in the application process-- it reflects well on them to have UGs at strong grad programs. Ask if you can set up informational meetings with some faculty, explain your situation, offer to show them a draft of your SoP and some of your writing, and then request if they could recommend you. If it's possible, actually going to your UG campus for a day to have meetings will make a huge difference. I did that before I applied and it helped tremendously. Face to a name sort of thing. Some people might say no, but you don't want them writing letters for you anyway. This means you'll need to do extra preparation. Draft an SoP, update your CV, and maybe write out a goals statement (which is not required for grad school applications, but helps letter writers figure out what to say about you.) Remember that part of our "service" requirement as professors will be to write letters of recommendation for people we hardly know. It's basically in the job description. Just present yourself as well prepared and do your research, and I'm sure you can pick up some letter writers. You'll need three.

One thing people do is apply for PhD programs and MA programs in the same cycle. You might surprise yourself with the programs you get accepted to, but never underestimate the competition in admissions. My view is that, if you know you want a PhD, don't pay for a masters unless you've already been rejected from PhD programs. @socgrad's advice of going for a professional degree or a applied research degree makes sense to me, and often programs will bump you to these MA tracks if they reject you from their PhD program. Put simply, don't assume you can't go straight into PhD and don't assume you definitely will. Applying to a couple MA back-ups is a good strategy. People around here have done that, and you may want to search around for past threads. Just on videogame culture, I recommend you seriously look into communication programs. They'll be much more amenable to the culture of videogames than sociology is (unfortunately). Even Anth programs would be more open to that, if you found a department with sociocultural digital anth people. Sociology is, in my opinion, way way behind in anything related to technology or the internet.

The most important thing you can do is start early, which you're doing. So, good work so far Nothing about what you've told us so far makes me think you're chances of getting accepted to a PhD program are bad. Here are the things you could do in the next 6 months to get you on track for the next admissions cycle: 1) Make a timeline. That is, get letters of recommendation lined up by X date, take the GREs by Y date, draft a statement of purpose (SoP) by Z date. Don't stress about these dates, just have a 12 month plan or so. 2) Get back in touch with your undergrad profs. Don't worry that it's been a couple years. Helping out former students is kind of part of their job (it was really hard for me to accept that, but now that I'm on the inside, it totally makes sense). Pick one or two who you had a relationship with (maybe from TAing), remind them who you are, what classes you took with them, and let them know you're interested in a PhD. These people will be useful in a few respects. First, talk to them about your general interests in sociology. They will be able to recommend readings and scholars for you to look into, and maybe even programs. Then, assuming you do decide to apply for a PhD, ask them to write letters of recommendation (in the August or September of the year you apply, i.e. next Fall). You'll find that younger (i.e. 50 and under) professors might have a better sense of the profession and what the application process is like, whereas older professors (50+) might have more time on their hands and name recognition if they're tenured. So be strategic and get lots of second, third, and fourth opinions on everything. 3) Try to do some sociological (more or less) research. This is not a necessary prerequisite for getting into a PhD program, but it will give you something to talk about in your SoP and perhaps a writing sample. You're GPA isn't stellar, so it will help round out your application profile. Doing research is really not as daunting as it sounds. Volunteer to do some interviews or data analysis for a local non-profit. If there's a college or university nearby, see if they have RAships you can do in the summer when students are gone. 4) Study study study for the GRE. It's not the determining factor in the admissions process, but it's hugely important. And, the GRE is very learnable. Get yourself a few study guides and work through them. I actually recommend getting a couple and working through them both. They'll be slightly different, and one will suit your particular style more. Plus, more practice the better. Flashcards are also key. Study partners help too. Some people take classes. I didn't, but I was able to devote an hour a day for like two months and then quit my job to study full time for two weeks before the test (random timing of a job transition worked perfectly). If you're not a great test taker by nature, I recommend giving yourself at least two months to prepare for the GRE. A good score there can help make up for your low GPA. 5) Start reading sociology. This will help you decide what your specific sociological interests are, what the state of the field is, who the players are in your area of interest, what programs have what specialty areas, and it will improve your SOP. Also, down the line (say, the September before you apply), you can reach out to some profs whose work you've read and introduce yourself as an applicant. 6) Adjust your internet time-wasting habits to be pro-sociology. That is, periodically get out the ASA website, the Orgtheory.net blog, and these boards. Follow sociologists on Twitter (seriously, it helps). These are small things that will add up to a lot more academic and professional knowledge. 7) Over the summer, start researching programs more intensively. Look at faculty CVs to see what kind of work they publish. Look at graduate student CVs and webpages. See if departments have classes, workshops, or research centers that interest you. Compile what you find into a spreadsheet, then think strategically about what programs are the best fit for you. Consult with your faculty friends. They'll appreciate that you've done all this research when you ask them for letters of rec. They'll like being able to say "So-and-so will make a great sociologist of gender/crime/development/etc...." if they have a good sense of your goals. I'd say your chances are as good as anyone else's. But, above all, think hard about why you want a PhD. There's is virtually no (career) reason to get a PhD unless you want to go into academia. Many people do go into other kinds of jobs nowadays, but the training is explicitly academic and departments are looking for students planning on going into academia. So if you're certain you want the life of an academic, then go for the PhD. If not, maybe you want another degree. You can always do the PhD later (assuming you were 22ish when you got your BA in 2010, then you'll still be on the young side of an entering cohort in 2014). Also, think hard about why you want to do sociology. I seriously wrestled with doing a degree in anth or comm instead, and I think many people deal with overlapping interests in these fields, economics, policy, public health, and other fields. Also, just noticed you're located in New York. Not sure if its possible for you, but the ASA national conference is in NYC this August. If that's doable, there's no harm in checking it out. Go to some panels, maybe try to get coffee with profs or grad students at programs that interest you (keep in mind, people will be suuuuper busy). Going to ASAs is not a normal thing before being in grad school, but there's little reason not to if you're in the city. All in all, stay positive. Seems like you're in good shape and thinking ahead. It can feel overwhelming, but that's why this board exists. In many ways, we'll only make it more stressful, but we do try to be as supportive as possible too Good luck.

I'd like to see a time series of these data. Please pass on my request to the ASA research division. Regards, SocialGroovements

UC Irvine has a strong political soc contingent that would be amenable to students from poli sci. They also have people doing world systems and labor. NYU has a Marxist political economy group and plenty of great ethnographers.

Not sure how it works at CUNY specifically, but it's common that you can't enroll off campus until the second year. So no consortium classes until year 2. You can audit at other universities anytime, though. Enrollment priority does go to students in the department, but I haven't yet encountered an issue with classes filling up. People cross-enroll literally all of the time. It's usually good to be in touch with the faculty you're interest in taking the class with ahead of time. They'll need to give you an enrollment code for you to register. The earlier you do that, the more likely you are to get in the class.

I was accepted to CUNY once upon a time and got a similar email about funding. Something to the effect of "We'll get back to you about your funding package." Problem is, they never got back to me. I think it was a mere logistical failure on their part, they weren't trying to short-change me. But April 15th loomed and I had solid packages elsewhere while CUNY just kept me hanging. Based on my personal experience, if I were you I would hound the DGS for more information on the funding package sooner rather than later. Maybe wait until after the visit day-- they use that to gauge the number of people going to accept the offer. If you've been in touch with a professor there, you can try to go through her or him too. This is especially useful if the professor is based at the GC and not one of the other campuses. I went to the visit day and maintain a pretty close relationship with happenings at CUNY still, so I'll try to speak to some of your other questions here. 1) How CUNY compares to higher ranked programs: The faculty at CUNY are pretty much as good as anywhere in the top 25 and there's a lot of them. However, some of them are spread out over the city. So while all your classes will be held at the GC in midtown, the person you really want to be your advisor might be at Queens College or something. That doesn't mean it can't work out, it just means you won't always be down the hall from your advisor. CUNY grads seem to do above average in the NYC job market (i.e. lots of CUNY GC grads at CUNY schools), but I think they fair about what you would expect for the ranking elsewhere. That is, I don't think CUNY punches above its weight in the same way similarly ranked UCI does. I think the main reason for that is resources. 2) On funding: My impression was that funding was all over the place. Everyone works for their money (TAs, RAs, adjuncts, etc.). Most people do adjunct teaching at colleges in the city, especially during their dissertation phase. That can lead to longer times to degree (one prof at CUNY said the department average was something like 7.5-8 years, which is only about a year higher than the average across programs I think). One thing I really didn't like about CUNY is that your adjunct teaching won't be at the GC. You would teach at any of the CUNY campuses or at other schools around the city. So maybe you have class at the GC and teach at Brooklyn College. You do have some flexibility in where you teach, so that you can aim to teach at a college near where you live, but that college will still not be the same campus as the sociology department. This is true of TAing also. 3) As RandomDood said, the culture of the department is definitely more politically involved than others. As a public university in NYC, I think it attracts those kinds of students. That can also mean a longer time to degree (that is, if you're an activist), but it can also be a great opportunity for research (plenty of OWS research going on at CUNY, for example). Also, the cohort is big, and people are spread out. It's not going to be as close knit a cohort as you might get at a smaller program or one in a more activity-limited location. Some people will live in Harlem and others in Brooklyn. Those people will probably never see each other outside of class and maybe the occasional happy hour. That's more a function of going to school in NYC than it is CUNY, though. 4) Something else you need to know: The NYC Consortium! If you go to school at CUNY, Columbia, NYU, New School, or Princeton, you can take any class at any of those schools and the cost is covered by your home institution (so if you're funded, it's free). Not only can you enroll in any class you want at any of these institutions, but you can have those faculty on your committee. The consortium should not be a deciding factor in picking a program (I think funding and ranking should trump), but it's definitely a perk.

SoCal might be a special case...

I've heard it said around here that 50 is the cut-off for people who want to work in academia. When you get into the 25-40 range, I think that sub-field reputation actually starts to matter more. I think that's because the value of network effects and advisor reputation and letters of recommendation really kick in when ranking means less. That is, you'll have to rely on those factors more than pure name recognition. I study social movements, so when I think of UC Irvine (27?) or Notre Dame (40ish?) or Pittsburgh (45?), I only think of the top-top social movement scholars there. If I meet a grad student from UC Irvine studying social movements, I can usually count on their work being as high quality as a student at a top-5 program. That's because the movements faculty at UCI are the best in the country. Now, if I meet a grad student studying social movements at, say, Princeton, I'll think "Really? With who?". Thats not to say the UCI grad will beat out the Princeton grad on the job market, but it does illustrate the special circumstance when sub-field strength can really compensate for ranking. I've had a faculty member say the same thing to me. Once you get familiar with the profession and all the big players, this becomes pretty intuitive. So if you find yourself choosing between a school ranked around 20 and one ranked around 30, go with the one where your interests fit best with a stellar faculty member. The good work you'll be doing with a big name will easily compensate for the drop in rankings. In fact, I know someone who chose a school ranked around 25-30 over a top 5. I chose a school ranked around 15 rather than a top 5. Happens all the time. However, if you're choosing between a top 20 and one closer to 40, then I would go with rankings over fit (if your career goal is R1 TT professorship). The other thing worth keeping in mind is position vs. directionality. I think schools like UCI, ND, USC, Rice are all on the up-and-up. So they may be stuck in the rankings, but their faculty and students are making waves.

@darthvegan, The tricky thing about topical areas like environmental soc is that they're not popular enough yet to really constitute a "subfield" that a program might list on its website or have comprehensive exams in. I think you've realized that and correctly pointed out that this is changing. However, I wouldn't underestimate the latitude you have in grad school to pursue whatever topic you want, even if it's not explicitly represented as a "subfield" or speciality area by the program. For example, my program doesn't list any particular enviro soc speciality area, but there are faculty in urban soc who are increasingly looking at the natural vs. built environment, climate politics, environmental movements, etc. I know plenty of social movement scholars who study the environmental movement. They all define themselves as social movement people, but are plenty knowledgeable about environmentalism. Also, any faculty doing spatial analysis would probably be amenable to an enviro focus. These people might fit themselves into urban soc, social movements, political economy, stratification, or whatever, because those are ready-made speciality areas, but they would probably all sit on a committee of someone doing something enviro-soc related. (In fact, I saw like three or four dissertation proposals last semester about climate politics, renewable energy, urban planning and environmentalism. I've also seen a handful of projects on urban farming at other schools). By way of analogy, historical-comparative sociologists all gang up together, even though some study post-war Europe and others study early-modern China and others study recent South America. The take-away is that you need a least one or two faculty members who will think "OK, that's a cool idea. I could advise a person like that." On your end, it means tailoring you SOP to say, "I want to study the spatial dynamics of urban inequality, especially with concern for climate justice issues." or "I'm interested in studying public opinion and policy making, focusing especially on carbon reduction policies." or "I'm interested in the political economy of American de-industrialization and agro-business, especially with an eye for the environmental dimensions." In others words, start broad to rope in an urban sociologist, political sociologist, political economist, whatever, then hit 'em with the environmentalism stuff. Also, most schools have environmental science programs from where you can pull committee members to complement. Sorry for hijacking the thread somewhat. On Oregon and rankings-- I would say look up the kinds of schools you see yourself working at to see if any semi-recently hired faculty (i.e. last 10 years) came from Oregon specifically or from similarly-ranked programs. When it comes to the lower-ranked programs, there's also a regional effect. That is, your advisor, program, and you will be better known in the Northwest because of network effects than on the East Coast. I ended up picking medium-ranked program because it places well in the Northeast, which I felt compensated for it's lower ranking relative to my other option. Edit* Also, you listed like 9 programs, and they were well dispersed in the rankings. I think that's about as good a strategy as you can have. I applied to 7 well dispersed programs and got accepted to 4, also well dispersed across ranking. This is also my 200th post. Ding!

Sure, that's a good point. It definitely depends on what you want to do with the degree. I think we were mostly speaking to full time teaching & research, probably at a research university. However, it's possible to take a PhD into a great many professions. Whether you need a PhD to do those jobs is another question. But, doing a funded PhD and writing a dissertation on policy analysis can be a lot (financially) cheaper than doing a two year MPP, for example.

Jacib has hit the nail on the head. I would only add this qualification to the "correlation between rankings and where people get jobs" piece: It's not just that reputation and social capital determine job placement, although that's a big part of why rankings matters. Another big factor is the accumulated advantage that higher ranked programs enjoy. You might actually do better work at a top program than a lower program IF you are more personally financially secure, research and travel funding is better, you have access to top faculty in other departments and research centers, have the name-recognition clout you need to land outside grants and big research interviews, and are surrounded by great peers (who also have secure funding, etc.). So these are sort of the "third/omitted variable" factors that might be at play behind the rankings=>job placement association. In that sense, I would say that you might fair better on the job market if you go to a lower ranked program that is willing to shell out for a solid funding package, a sweet fellowship at a research center, and a lot of advisor support than if you went to a top ranked program where you had less support, because in the former you'll be working in conditions conducive to quality productivity. I turned down such a program last year for a higher ranked one where I feel less "special", and have really noticed the difference. (not that I'm regretting- my ultimate decision was geographically prescribed) That being said, I think the basic point that rankings matter a lot (after only publication quality, I agree) is accurate, even if because the better ranked programs possess all those things (good funding, good outside opportunities, etc.) that conduce to quality publications.

During one visit day, a POI took me out for a cup of coffee to chat. He asked if I had any questions or concerns, and I said, "Well I'm worried my math might not be up to par for the stats sequence." He paused for a moment and said "I thought you were doing all this social network stuff?" Luckily I was already accepted. Feel bad for the social network guy with a similar name as me who got rejected though...

UNC didn't fund travel last year either. I nevertheless found it extremely useful to visit, even though I paid out of pocket. Might be worth talking to them though, as Jacib said. But if they can't cover travel, don't assume they're not as interested. Money is tighter at UNC than the other top programs (the state of NC hardly funds public education).

I agree with the above comment. It's admirable for a faculty member to take the care to understand how students think and feel about admissions in candid conversations. I'm now a student in a program and find that faculty have mixed attitudes toward students. A few are looking for protoges, some want nothing to do with us, but most are more or less ambivalent/confused about grad students. I think the sensitizing effect from having faculty peer into our collective neuroses (and spread the word of empathy among colleagues) is perhaps even more valuable than your (already very valuable) advice. So that's one reason for you to at least lurk. That all being said, I've been on this board since early 2011 and I've always found your posts quite useful and reassuring. Voice of reason, and all that. It's good to be reminded every year that GREs aren't the whole story, to apply based on fit over ranking (but ranking matters too), to think hard about why you want a PhD after all, and so on and so forth down the line of classic, annual advice.

Yup. My first semester has been "easy" in that, by now in our academic careers, nobody is really shocked by "reading" (read: skimming) two or three books a week and taking periodic take-home exams. It's "easy" in that most everyone gets an A because the professors really don't care about a normal distribution of grades or any of that crap, because proving you can do original work is all the matters. It's easy in that the intro stats class attempted to move at a speed that was comfortable for students who had no interest in quantitative methods (which had the positive effect of making them more interested in quant methods). So it was easy in these respects; I certainly did not go blind. However, it was difficult in that, on the first day of my stats class, we were asked to brainstorm a final project that would be an original piece of statistical analysis, hypothetically publishable. It's difficult in the respect that we're encouraged to start doing original work from day one, and I've spent my winter break in the office trying to do just that. So, as with most things, it's as challenging as you make it. The hard part is not the amount of reading or the math, it's having something interesting to say, first in discussion and workshops every day and ultimately in article manuscripts. That all being said, programs vary. Some have more involved methods sequences than others. Others have a bigger emphasis on publishing early and often. Most of the challenge is in participating in a non-stop intellectual community. Keeping up with the Jones's, so to speak.

Most profs won't know what Coursera is, but some will. Mitch Duneier taught Coursera's intro to sociology course this Fall. It's one thing to say "I took an online introductory course"; it's entirely different to say "I took an online introductory course with Mitch Duneier". While in fact the quality of the course probably doesn't change much based on who teaches it, name-dropping signals that the course was serious, even if 60,000 people enrolled (which is not uncommon for Coursera). And you can assume that at least some people at the participating faculties (Mich, Princeton, Berkeley...) might be aware of it if their colleagues are participating. I concur with the above post that Coursera's biggest payoff might be in methods, which are harder to just pick up from independent study and are more-or-less the same regardless of who's teaching. Coursera's social network analysis class this Fall was taught by Lada Adamic, a big name in SNA. The formal modeling class was taught by Scott E. Page, political scientist at UMich. Point is, no Coursera class will get you out of program requirements. But, they do signal self-motivated learning. Perhaps more importantly, you can impress people with a little "Oh, network analysis? Yeah I did a little of that with Lada Adamic". If you have nothing but time on your hands, then I say go for it. There's nothing to lose. But I wouldn't sacrifice GRE study time for Coursera work.

And for what it's worth, I applied to 7 programs ranked 5 to 28 (the order set, in terms of ranks went something like {5,5,14,14,27,28,28}). I got accepted at a top-5 and wait-listed (eventually withdrew) from a 28. I wouldn't say it's a total crapshoot, because fit has so much to do with outcome, but it's really hard to predict where you'll get in. It's not worth applying to any programs as "back-ups". If you don't want to go there, don't apply. If you don't think you'll like the job you get when you finish, don't apply. It makes more sense to apply two years in a row than to settle for a program you don't like.

The job market could be worse, but not by much. http://asanet.org/research/current_research_projects.cfm#jobs Sociologists also always have the option to get a job outside academia. The difference with economists is that they'll get paid a lot. On your first observation: I wouldn't say mathematical and economic sociology are bigger in lower ranked programs, nor that the Ivy's are subject to "methodological inertia" (nor that the Ivy's are all top programs, for that matter). I'll leave mathematical sociology aside for the moment because of its multiple possible meanings (as per the other thread). Economic sociology is found everywhere, more or less. It is sometimes noted that quantitative methods are more hegemonic in the middle tier. Around here there are a few explanations for that. One is that these programs aspire to the top tier and so hire people who can produce a lot of decent work quickly. It's "easy" to do decent quantitative work quickly, whereas an ethnography is either really great or just run of the mill and it takes years to complete. Another possible reason is on the supply side, where top tier programs overproduce quant methodologists who all end up moving down a tier. The qualitative people either stay on top or get bumped down to the third tier. In any case, I would definitely not think of the top ranked programs as suffering from some kind of methodological path dependency. These programs have the luxury to diversify their faculty, hiring the best of all methods. On your second observation. There has been research done on the extent of vertical mobility in professional sociology. The pith is that the vast majority of the vertical movement is downward. That's not inherently a bad thing. There are many wonderful places to work that don't have ranked sociology departments. If it's your goal to be in a top department, then chances are you need to attend a top department. People are very rarely hired into higher tiers. Exceptions happen when your advisor is a big name and your publishing record is exemplary. Both conditions appear to be necessary but, alone, insufficient. That being said, if the lowest ranked program to which you apply is UC IrvinE, then you're not in bad shape. That's still a roughly top-25 program with an extremely active research faculty and top quality students. I've personally known students who have turned down top-5 programs to go to UCI. Last year we had a thread about programs we think might move up the rankings in the next round of USNWR, and UCI was a popular nominee. This all goes to show that rankings matter less than reputation, for which they are a proxy. If your program is known for economic sociology, your advisor is a top dog in the subfield, you publish, and you network with the right people, then there's little reason why you can't get a job in a higher ranked program (aside from the simply fact of low demand and oversupply). Now on your final question: Whether schools like Duke or Indiana will place upwards is a tricky question. On the one hand, those two programs are excellent. The quality of training there is equal to any other program in the country, and their reputation reflects that. The thing about placing people higher is that there really isn't much higher to go. The thing about breaking into the top 10 programs is that... there are only 10 of them! (or 13 or whatever it really is). So it's just a game of numbers. So few jobs open up that you might never have the opportunity to even apply for an AP spot at those programs. But I really wouldn't worry about moving up from Duke and Indiana. They both place well. I chose a program ranked in the 15ish range over a top-5 without too much worry about the differences is placement.

@fuzzylogician, thanks so much for your response. I see what you mean about transferring vs. reapplying. Makes sense. As for the diminishing value of faculty fit over time, I'm concerned about the "apprenticeship" phase. It sounds like that might be particular to my field. In short, in the first two years of a MA/PhD program, it's common for students doing certain kinds of work to work as a research assistant for a professor in exchange for both funding and a co-authored publication or two. After one has received the MA, he/she usually works independently on a dissertation, perhaps still producing a couple of articles in the years it takes to finish the dissertation. So having a professor for whom you can "apprentice" matters significantly at first, but not so much later one. You are of course right that the guidance of a good advisor is crucial throughout the duration of the program. The explicit reason I would give for the move is what I said here, which is I think I'll fit in better elsewhere. I can't imagine that would offend anyone except for my own advisor who works in my sub-field, but he's moving in a new direction I didn't know about when I applied, so I think he would understand. I can't burn bridges that were never built, right? Thanks again for the advice. Does anyone else out there have any experience with re-applying to a program to which they've already been accepted? Are there any short-cuts? Can I just ask them to reconsider my original application or do I need to start from scratch? I know I can just ask the department, but I'm trying to keep my plans on the DL until I'm absolutely certain of what I'll do.

Hello All, I've search around a bit on grad cafe, but haven't found much on my precise question. I'm in the first year of a PhD program. I'm considering applying to transfer to a program to which I had been accepted during last Spring's admissions cycle, which I turned down. The reason I want to transfer is faculty fit. It turns out I don't have a fit with anyone in my current department. Other than that, no conflicts or bad will. Other than fit, I'm doing very well in my program. My question is two part. First, and most importantly, what's involved in applying to transfer to a school that had offered me admission last Spring? Do I need to apply all over again, or can I just get some letter of good standing from my current department and ask my target department to reconsider the application they have on record? This matters because I'm short on time and I would hate to trouble my references to upload letters. My second question is about timing. It seems like the accepted wisdom is to wait until after having a MA to apply for transfer. I think I'd prefer to do it sooner because, by the time I finish my MA, I'll be moving onto the dissertation phase and working with faculty will be less important. I'd rather transfer now so that I have my whole second year to work with faculty. But is it silly to apply to transfer after only three months of my current program? I think that, because the problem is lack of faculty fit and support, "waiting it out" isn't going to improve things. As far as social fit with the cohort and succeeding in my classes, I'm doing fine. For what it's worth, I'm in the social sciences. Also, the program I would like to transfer into was very keen on having me last year, so it's not a total long shot. I turned them down mostly for geographic reasons.